Discussion of “On equivalent granular void ratio and steady state behaviour of loose sand with fines”Appears in the Canadian Geotechnical Journal, <b>45</b>(10): 1439–1456.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors are commended for offering an interesting discussion of the factors affecting the b value that represents the fraction of fines that actively participate in the force structure of the solid skeleton.A simple semi-empirical equation that can be used to predict the b value based on fines size and fines content was proposed.Published and carefully obtained testing data are used to validate the proposed equation.We agree with the authors that ''having a physically reasonable and mathematically consistent equation to predict the b values . . . is an essential step for the determination of equivalent granular void ratio,'' which, in turn, is essential for the prediction of flow behaviour for the whole spectrum of fines content under the critical state soil mechanics framework.As most researchers are still assuming the b value to be independent of fines content and then backcalculate b for a given sand-fines type, the work presented in this paper is an important addition to the published literature on this subject.Although the equations proposed by the authors are useful for the prediction of steady state behaviour of silty or clayey sand, there are some points in the paper that deserve further discussion or clarification.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".